Re: [AVTCORE] Registering AVP Profiles for RTP over QUIC

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Wed, 11 May 2022 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE21C159498 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JNvkEYwcHcxz for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F20AC157B5F for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id a191so2997577pge.2 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XP/hF2kzb8/yC0AvzCAvHKmLbR38FLmJqo6ofFY1XSo=; b=KkOr1JHCwVbXeolXUjEt9C98YaD6ERJVGxGnfhXcQvqAu+QtbHz2PN05ESye5NS+49 PY+2+NMNIyCFnTPacHQ2rnQvg5LeGvNmSXQDTQb0CmuEUXuuZhZk+7tHvjEQztbJng6/ 2zn2tmjVmZMMhdu+g9kSEoM4mUV0SYIz7wFCFnDrkdIkVZwFrfFeUaLywKi5MqkpWZOr 9dm6P2EnDtsK/jRbHcjIcL0QYtCqrVC3Dh61NeR/lKjqq8+0dJwfz3/LUK0CL6PsqrIo 6T0FgyrK+v+chp/RWYg0kJiq83HBAgEw5etN8cT+Vkv6FO3rNNj+ERRnPpJ7YNGfS831 g4lQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XP/hF2kzb8/yC0AvzCAvHKmLbR38FLmJqo6ofFY1XSo=; b=e9hwSPkGEx1KTSvPiCeQnPLBPXw+3BrLtS2tgjeSi2OwTFnsPBKvXBkF1/1BQW4e9p moZTtK0tNo/YANM6/VGQEi8fc+qCk8snxrWWtPA9vn471/KPMsRl0Dptvx1gQiU3nVT/ IE9yRRWo36zyqgwHtN4rhb/LGH13pLSL1/HDVxkVIQzn3/QzVD3JpJw0UMJCiIWV0VSS 6Z5/FChPAVOZRhMHHDQ5fsVjIJYXa1QEMGkhbJgeol3uQevU+i4Kd6AlPxLAUbY1qtxU 4tiBWVj7MHaDO/w8NLxaBQTP36PaLr422hUvsi74TD4Cn2mYFNc9GFy1kpS1CkjZi4tY i3Yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DlzJwzl5PdWfR2pM6XWA78Q1izPSIDSybabKwkA3FV2P9JxxM 9rYAbG6B0S6eiB/KsZ3RkuBLvHmCC8DoNqcTsvc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNhoTmqgh3+NAldfKPe9unoFVT7HjCu8AGyPtIX4hsBHO9s3hy95XDUUrOj3haeICGJ4NH5ARPaWFvNTCbAQc=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:4e90:0:b0:505:fa47:b611 with SMTP id c138-20020a624e90000000b00505fa47b611mr26985745pfb.65.1652308537557; Wed, 11 May 2022 15:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKKJt-dvotzuaK66T8WQd7YgNLNr_6vqa4W8-z=5FvujpGWA=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-dvotzuaK66T8WQd7YgNLNr_6vqa4W8-z=5FvujpGWA=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 00:34:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ag07Zh2_a2QCmyTw1v2+A=XfixEJVv5NfO6x5wfg7i-oHZnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF AVTCore WG <avt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000070cab705dec40fe8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/1SA0BG4K3-bE3PSNklSYpVegkBE>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Registering AVP Profiles for RTP over QUIC
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 22:35:42 -0000

I don't think that the senders should signal anything to middleboxes,
moreover, senders most probably are not aware of middleboxes.

If doing QUIC/RTP/SAVPF with double encryption, how would the encryption
key be negotiated? I really hope that we are neither doing DTLS tunneling
over QUIC nor using SDES.

So IMHO, the only viable option is to specify QUIC/RTP/AVPF and if there is
a middlebox doing conversion to UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF it must acting as a
"B2BUA", negotiating RTP over QUIC on one leg and DTLS/SRTP on the other
side.

Best regards
Sergio



On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:48 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear AVTCORE,
>
> I've had an open PR in
> https://github.com/SpencerDawkins/sdp-rtp-quic/pull/9 for a while,so I
> could get a sense of how AVT profiles are supposed to work, and I'd like to
> push on that now (with a virtual interim meeting coming up next week)..
>
> The high-level summary of discussion in
> https://github.com/SpencerDawkins/sdp-rtp-quic-issues/issues/5 (note that
> this discussion is in a different repo, because reasons) has been
> roughly,"what's the difference between QUIC/RTP/AVPF and QUIC/RTP/SAVPF"?
>
> The arguments about not registering secure AVP profiles involve
>
>    -  the computational overhead of double encryption for all packets,
>    plus
>    - the payload overhead of 10 bytes per packet since you have 2 HMACs.
>
> The arguments about registering secure AVP profiles seem to revolve around
>
>    - Minimizing the impact of added QUIC support in existing
>    implementations that are using /RTP/SAVPF now.
>    - QUIC encryption protects payloads between QUIC endpoints, but there
>    are many multi-endpoint RTP topologies (
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7667 has about 50 pages of them),
>    and when a middlebox receives  QUIC/RTP/AVPF, it's not obvious whether the
>    middlebox should
>       - forward the RTP payload using  RTP/AVPF (where the outgoing AVPF
>       matches the incoming AVPF), or
>       - forward the RTP payload using RTP/SAVPF, where the outgoing SRTP
>       encryption matches the incoming QUIC
>
> It seems to me that there are three choices:
>
>    - Use only QUIC/RTP/AVPF, and and require middleboxes receiving
>    QUIC/RTP/AVPF traffic to always forward that traffic over RTP/SAVPF
>    - Use only QUIC/RTP/AVPF, and and require senders to signal
>    middleboxes whether they should forward that traffic over RTP/AVPF or
>    RTP/SAVPF
>    - Register both QUIC/RTP/AVPF and QUIC/RTP/SAVPF, and if you have to
>    do double encryption on the QUIC/RTP paths to get RTP/SAVPF on the other
>    side of a middlebox, too bad
>
> So, my questions are,
>
>    - What am I missing here?
>    - Are any of the choices I'm listing obviously the *BEST* choice?
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>